Opposition Against Animal Testing Grows—A Little

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that the U.S. public is closely divided over the issue of animal testing: 47 percent favor the practice, while 52 percent oppose it. That’s actually a slight improvement over results from the previous study they did, in 2014, in which 50 percent of respondents opposed animal testing.

This new survey comes as the topic of using animals for testing products and for scientific research is being hotly debated. Researchers, activists, and politicians all have a vested interest in what happens with vivisection, and most—even those who profit from using animals—seem to agree that at minimum more can be done to reduce the use of animals in labs. Among the issues up for debate are specific bans being proposed, such as California’s SB 1249, as well as HR 2790, also known as the Humane Cosmetics Act, which would phase out animal-based testing for cosmetic products in the U.S. in favor of alternative testing methods (such as computer models and in-vitro testing) and eventually ban the sale in the United States of cosmetics tested on animals in other countries.

Activists have a lot of data on their side. For example, previous research has shown that 72 percent of consumers agree that testing cosmetics on animals is unethical. Moreover, using in-vitro models to predict skin irritation in humans has resulted in accuracy rates of 76 to 86 percent. Compare that to the accuracy of just 60 percent using rabbits. You’d get pretty much the same results by flipping a coin.

I asked Monica Engebretson, North America campaign manager for Cruelty Free International, about the efforts she and her colleagues are engaged in to end the practice of animal testing. Founded in 1898 by Irish writer and suffragette Frances Power Cobbe as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, Cruelty Free International has been agitating against vivisection since its inception.

“As an organization, Cruelty Free International has a big mission: to end animal experiments worldwide,” says Monica. “Our organization is headquartered in London, so we have campaigns that are focused in Europe as well as campaigns that reach around the world. This makes a lot of sense considering that European countries often lead the way on animal protection and then it becomes our task to get other countries to catch up. In fact, one of our big campaigns in the UK right now, called ‘Lead the Way,’ is working to end the use of dogs in toxicity testing. Another example is cosmetic testing on animals. The European Union started phasing out the use of animals for cosmetic tests in 2009 and the full ban came into effect in 2013. Following on this success, Cruelty Free International has been working in countries around the world to match this progress. Currently we are working to bring a petition of 8 million signatures to the United Nations.”

Stateside, Monica and her colleagues are working on what she calls “prioritizing alternatives” initiatives. “I think most people would be shocked to realize that even when modern non-animal tests are available there is no federal requirement that those alternatives be used in place of animal tests. As a result, hundreds of thousands of animals may be used each year in outdated tests that have scientifically valid, humane alternatives. [In contrast, the EU has mandated the use of available alternatives since 1986.] We were successful in passing such legislation in Virginia last year and came very close to passing a law in Hawaii. California, New York, and New Jersey already have similar laws in place. It’s all about moving the needle and keeping your eyes on the big picture.”